Hawking Says Universe Created Itself

[sealybobo]

There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is spreading outward.

What?

Using the 100-inch Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, Dr. Edwin Hubble has studied many spiral nebulae. He has discovered they are moving away from us at a rapid pace. This is strong evidence of an expanding universe. He has further determined that the farther the nebula, the faster it moves away.
Universe is Expanding​

Redshift is not evidence that the universe is expanding.

It is evidence that everything is moving away from us and for that to happen the universe must be expanding. A consequence of an expanding universe is that the universe had a beginning. This makes certain people very uncomfortable.

I used to think that too when I was a little kid. That's what we were taught in elementary school. When I got older I put much deeper thought into it before coming to the logical conclusion that the universe is infinite and eternal.

Our universe was born and will die but that's not the last universe in the universe.

 

[sealybobo]

It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
Energy is created.....matter is not

So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.

There's no need for a god. If he's eternal so are universes that he creates. One dies yes but another is born.

No. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe. If our universe were infinite we would have thermal equilibrium which we don't see.

No one said our universe is infinite. It's just not the only universe.

Do you have an evidence to support this assertion?

Of course not. It's an unknowable thing. It's just a scientific possibility to an unknowable question. You claim to know not me

 

[Andylusion]

`
The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, The Grand Design, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."

Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.

It's only plausible, if you have faith. In this case, not a faith in G-d, but a faith in chance.

First we have to assume that string theory... is correct. Which as the name implies, it is theory, not fact. It is a possible answer, that somewhat fits what we know, and we know very little.

If we take that as truth, then we can use a mathematical basis for saying that the total net energy, based on the calculations we have, is zero. If you take the positive energy, and negative energy, and add them up together, the answer is zero.

This implies that no external source of energy is needed, because the pluses and minuses balances out.

Is that true? We don't even know. But if we assume that is true, just like we assume string theory is true, then possibly it is true that the universe could create itself, because there is no need for some external energy to create it.

When you go threw every single basis, and label each unproven claim to be a faith based assumption, which is what it really is... you see it's nice... it's a neat concept... but honestly not much substance.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How so?

Are you familiar with ABG theory?

"ABG Theory"

"abiogenesis" is one word. And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!". So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator". You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.

Yea, we already talked about this. I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms. There's your magical fucking unicorn carrying your boyfriend.

"I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms."

see what I mean? you keep saying this same, stupid thing, though nobody posits this. Nobody says life came from rocks. You don't care... you just keep repeating the lie....


lemme guess: you're a trump guy, heh heh

Atheists posit that non-living material, somehow, created life. I am using a rock as an example. We can use sand, ash, etc. and it's still all the same. You can't explain how life came to be. You have NOTHING.

"am using a rock as an example. We can use sand, ash, etc. and it's still all the same"

That's all wrong. No sand, no rock, no ash. Just proteins. And yes, we can explain it quite easily and simply: selection. You seems to thibk that, because you struggle to understand it, it cannot be understood. Of course you only reserve this goofy stance for ideas that don't align with your superstitions. You probably don't don't understand the workings of microprocessors either... But you don't reject quantum theory, because you don't see it as a threat to your superstitions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

`
The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, The Grand Design, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."

Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.

It's only plausible, if you have faith. In this case, not a faith in G-d, but a faith in chance.

First we have to assume that string theory... is correct. Which as the name implies, it is theory, not fact. It is a possible answer, that somewhat fits what we know, and we know very little.

If we take that as truth, then we can use a mathematical basis for saying that the total net energy, based on the calculations we have, is zero. If you take the positive energy, and negative energy, and add them up together, the answer is zero.

This implies that no external source of energy is needed, because the pluses and minuses balances out.

Is that true? We don't even know. But if we assume that is true, just like we assume string theory is true, then possibly it is true that the universe could create itself, because there is no need for some external energy to create it.

When you go threw every single basis, and label each unproven claim to be a faith based assumption, which is what it really is... you see it's nice... it's a neat concept... but honestly not much substance.

"It's only plausible, if you have faith. In this case, not a faith in G-d, but a faith in chance."

Ridiculous statement, and just another deperate attempt to drag rational thought down into the murk of faith. It requires no faith to deem it plausible or possible, just as it requires no faith to deem the existence of god to be plausible or possible.

 

[K9Buck]

Are you familiar with ABG theory?

"ABG Theory"

"abiogenesis" is one word. And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!". So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator". You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.

Yea, we already talked about this. I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms. There's your magical fucking unicorn carrying your boyfriend.

"I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms."

see what I mean? you keep saying this same, stupid thing, though nobody posits this. Nobody says life came from rocks. You don't care... you just keep repeating the lie....


lemme guess: you're a trump guy, heh heh

Atheists posit that non-living material, somehow, created life. I am using a rock as an example. We can use sand, ash, etc. and it's still all the same. You can't explain how life came to be. You have NOTHING.

"am using a rock as an example. We can use sand, ash, etc. and it's still all the same"

That's all wrong. No sand, no rock, no ash. Just proteins. And yes, we can explain it quite easily and simply: selection. You seems to thibk that, because you struggle to understand it, it cannot be understood. Of course you only reserve this goofy stance for ideas that don't align with your superstitions. You probably don't don't understand the workings of microprocessors either... But you don't reject quantum theory, because you don't see it as a threat to your superstitions.

Great. Replicate it in a lab. Thanks for playing.

 

[ding]

Oh, but we do. His name is Albert Einstein. The beginning was discovered when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope. Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding. Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point. Or do you doubt E=MC2?

He did not "realize" that, he postulated it. You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to argue as true.

Also, you are off base. If the observable universe did, indeed, begin as a singularity, then to all of us it would appear to be infinite and have no beginning. So you kind of tripped over your own argument, there.

Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.

It is only a singularity mathematically. Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state. Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress. My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means. It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom. If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning. Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.

"If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."

Wrong. That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time. The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.

Actually it does mean it does. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.

 

[ding]

There you have it. It was already done. We done?

No it wasn't. There is no proof. The advent of Father Christmas, The tooth fairy and Easter Bunny came on the scene in a lot more recent history than your saviour is alleged to. You believe in them, too?

Were you there?

 

[ding]

How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.

It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
Energy is created.....matter is not

So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.

There's no need for a god. If he's eternal so are universes that he creates. One dies yes but another is born.

No. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe. If our universe were infinite we would have thermal equilibrium which we don't see.

No one said our universe is infinite. It's just not the only universe.

How do you know?

 

[ding]

Oh, but we do. His name is Albert Einstein. The beginning was discovered when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope. Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding. Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point. Or do you doubt E=MC2?

He did not "realize" that, he postulated it. You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to argue as true.

Also, you are off base. If the observable universe did, indeed, begin as a singularity, then to all of us it would appear to be infinite and have no beginning. So you kind of tripped over your own argument, there.

Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.

It is only a singularity mathematically. Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state. Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress. My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means. It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom. If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning. Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.

"If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."

Wrong. That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time. The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.

You never answered my questions. I'll skip to the point. The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would eventually exist given enough time and the right conditions. Those laws existed before space and time and are such that the matter that makes up you evolved from subatomic particles 14 billion years ago until today. Everything which has unfolded from that point to today is evidence that can be used just like any other evidence can be used. And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws.

 

[Dr Grump]

Were you there?

Nope. Neither were you.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research

How do you know he's "brilliant"? Nothing I've read from him tells me that. Just another brainwashed left-wing loon. Also a sick pervert.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"ABG Theory"

"abiogenesis" is one word. And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!". So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator". You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.

Yea, we already talked about this. I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms. There's your magical fucking unicorn carrying your boyfriend.

"I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms."

see what I mean? you keep saying this same, stupid thing, though nobody posits this. Nobody says life came from rocks. You don't care... you just keep repeating the lie....


lemme guess: you're a trump guy, heh heh

Atheists posit that non-living material, somehow, created life. I am using a rock as an example. We can use sand, ash, etc. and it's still all the same. You can't explain how life came to be. You have NOTHING.

"am using a rock as an example. We can use sand, ash, etc. and it's still all the same"

That's all wrong. No sand, no rock, no ash. Just proteins. And yes, we can explain it quite easily and simply: selection. You seems to thibk that, because you struggle to understand it, it cannot be understood. Of course you only reserve this goofy stance for ideas that don't align with your superstitions. You probably don't don't understand the workings of microprocessors either... But you don't reject quantum theory, because you don't see it as a threat to your superstitions.

Great. Replicate it in a lab. Thanks for playing.

That's a ridiculous, absurd standard. Truly spoken like someone who knows less than nothing about science. Do you also reject star formation, since we haven't recreated a star in a lab? Of course you don't, because it doesn't conflict with your superstitions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research

How do you know he's "brilliant"? Nothing I've read from him tells me that. Just another brainwashed left-wing loon. Also a sick pervert.

"How do you know he's "brilliant"? Nothing I've read from him tells me that.:"

As if you have read a single word of his books or published, scientific articles. Spare us. You barely manage complete sentences.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He did not "realize" that, he postulated it. You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to argue as true.

Also, you are off base. If the observable universe did, indeed, begin as a singularity, then to all of us it would appear to be infinite and have no beginning. So you kind of tripped over your own argument, there.

Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.

It is only a singularity mathematically. Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state. Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress. My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means. It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom. If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning. Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.

"If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."

Wrong. That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time. The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.

You never answered my questions. I'll skip to the point. The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would eventually exist given enough time and the right conditions. Those laws existed before space and time and are such that the matter that makes up you evolved from subatomic particles 14 billion years ago until today. Everything which has unfolded from that point to today is evidence that can be used just like any other evidence can be used. And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws.

"And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws."

Simply reiterating and repeating you authoritative declaration is not support of it. Yes, there are other possible conclusions. No, you have made no good argument otherwise. No, stomping your feet and insisting upon the truth of a statement is not support of it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He did not "realize" that, he postulated it. You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to argue as true.

Also, you are off base. If the observable universe did, indeed, begin as a singularity, then to all of us it would appear to be infinite and have no beginning. So you kind of tripped over your own argument, there.

Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.

It is only a singularity mathematically. Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state. Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress. My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means. It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom. If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning. Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.

"If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."

Wrong. That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time. The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.

Actually it does mean it does. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.

"The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe."

Wrong. Scientists have come to believe that the net energy of our universe is zero.

 

[ding]

Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.

It is only a singularity mathematically. Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state. Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress. My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means. It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom. If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning. Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.

"If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."

Wrong. That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time. The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.

Actually it does mean it does. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.

"The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe."

Wrong. Scientists have come to believe that the net energy of our universe is zero.

So what? How do you think that affects entropy?

 

[ding]

Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.

It is only a singularity mathematically. Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state. Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress. My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means. It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom. If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning. Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.

"If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."

Wrong. That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time. The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.

You never answered my questions. I'll skip to the point. The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would eventually exist given enough time and the right conditions. Those laws existed before space and time and are such that the matter that makes up you evolved from subatomic particles 14 billion years ago until today. Everything which has unfolded from that point to today is evidence that can be used just like any other evidence can be used. And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws.

"And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws."

Simply reiterating and repeating you authoritative declaration is not support of it. Yes, there are other possible conclusions. No, you have made no good argument otherwise. No, stomping your feet and insisting upon the truth of a statement is not support of it.

So what are those other possible conclusions?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.

It is only a singularity mathematically. Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state. Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress. My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means. It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom. If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning. Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.

"If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."

Wrong. That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time. The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.

Actually it does mean it does. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.

"The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe."

Wrong. Scientists have come to believe that the net energy of our universe is zero.

So what? How do you think that affects entropy?

It means that our observable universe could indeed have a beginning and end, while not violating the 2nd law.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.

It is only a singularity mathematically. Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state. Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress. My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means. It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom. If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning. Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.

"If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."

Wrong. That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time. The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.

You never answered my questions. I'll skip to the point. The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would eventually exist given enough time and the right conditions. Those laws existed before space and time and are such that the matter that makes up you evolved from subatomic particles 14 billion years ago until today. Everything which has unfolded from that point to today is evidence that can be used just like any other evidence can be used. And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws.

"And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws."

Simply reiterating and repeating you authoritative declaration is not support of it. Yes, there are other possible conclusions. No, you have made no good argument otherwise. No, stomping your feet and insisting upon the truth of a statement is not support of it.

So what are those other possible conclusions?

That the laws of our universe were simply emergent from the initial conditions, and that what we see today is what selection, operating from those laws, has produced. I see no need to introduce an "intelligent designer", or "purpose" to explain these things. You may wish to graft those ideas onto the explanation (like a vestigial appendage whose only current purpose is to help you reconcile your beliefs with reality), but I certainly do no t find it to be necessary in any way.